Renewable Energy wrote:
tse wrote:[quote]but in terms of net cost to the consumer I haven't seen evidence of a utility trying to charge the homeowner for electricity sold back to the grid.
Well then you haven't been paying attention.
Please provide evidence I'm wrong. The rest of your points are equally bad but I'll tackle these one at a time.
You're right, but I'm too stupid and ashamed of myself to admit it.
In fact all of your points are right on the mark, but I'm still going to try and discredit them, because my livelihood depends on screwing the consumers.
Blah Blah. wrote:
Johnston and Stein in the last few weeks have been receiving some major political donations.
Jill Stein interview on Fox Business today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5W04qgsYAA lot of fossil fuel subsidies are just tax loopholes. I grant you, Johnson does away with these loopholes in the most cynical way. He eliminates income taxes altogether so that any loopholes have no value. Also, Johnson is against the use of eminent domain for private purposes. When I said Johnson supports the idea of simply not using fossil fuels I meant that Johnson does not support economic growth just for the sake of economic growth the way both major parties do. If Johnson were in office today he would replace the federal reserve chairman the first chance he got with someone much more hawkish. It would probably precipitate a recession and Johnson would be content to let recessions run its course. Again, maybe that is a cynical way to cut fossil fuels. But it would cut fossil fuels use more than the standard Democrat plan of stimulating economic output while doing some various subsidies for industrial output of green energy.
Renewable Energy wrote:
ryan foreman wrote:Johnson doesn't support subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
Please show some proof of this, such as links to his statements etc.
Renewables are available. But there is also the option of cutting fossil fuels by simply not using fossil fuels.
Okay, so you're agreeing with me. Johnson is for keeping things as they are.
ryan foreman wrote:
If Johnson were in office today he would replace the federal reserve chairman the first chance he got with someone much more hawkish.
In other words he'd keep the system as it is.
Even eliminating the Fed would not get rid of the subsidies.
The trillion dollar bailouts to the car industry had nothing to do with taxes.
No.
A thread about 3rd party candidates still exists? I can't believe this thread hasn't been deleted.
I will take this opportunity to say that my biggest disappointed of this election is that 3rd parties didn't take more inroads.
I really don't understand. How bad do the mainstream candidates have to get before you finally vote 3rd party?
I've seriously come to believe that America could have an election between Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Ralph Nader and America would probably narrowly elect Stalin over Hitler.
ryan foreman wrote:
A thread about 3rd party candidates still exists? I can't believe this thread hasn't been deleted.
I will take this opportunity to say that my biggest disappointed of this election is that 3rd parties didn't take more inroads.
I really don't understand. How bad do the mainstream candidates have to get before you finally vote 3rd party?
I've seriously come to believe that America could have an election between Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Ralph Nader and America would probably narrowly elect Stalin over Hitler.
Politics is a team sport, so it makes sense to go with the team you think might win.
Still, had Trump lost due to Republican Establishment sabotage, I think the Republican party would have faced a serious third party threat next time around.
Trump is NOT business as usual. None of us has seen someone do what Trump just did. Hopefully he'll use his political capital to do some good things. I'm hoping for change.
No, not a third party candidate.
2020 will be Mark Cuban v Howard Schultz.